NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as a repeal is underway, here is my thoughts for a replacement. I've decided to go for the "scarce resources" side as opposed to the "global warming/pollution" side, as I feel scarce resources is relevent for more nations

Constructive criticism always appreciated!

The Finite Resources Act

RECOGNISING that many of the energy resources used by member nations (specifically fossil fuels including but not limited to coal, oil and natural gas) are finite and therefore there continued use will be detrimental to the economic status of many nations when they run out

FURTHER RECOGNISING that the use of such fuels, especially fossil fuels, is damaging to the environmental status of nations

NOTING the gulf between economical and technological developement between member nations

EMPHASISING that no nation should be forced to curtail it's economical, technological, and population growth

DESIRING that the use of such energy sources decline through the use of renewable or infinite fuel sources or the through increased efficiency of the use of finite fuel sources

ESTABLISHES the UNFFUC (United Nations Finite Fuel Use Commitee), whose role will be to:
-Classify nations economical and technological status for the purposes of this resolution
-To grant temporary compliance deferment for as long as they deem necessary for nations the effects of natural disasters, and other possibilities at their own discretion on a case by case basis or in the case of a nation having significantly poor economic and/or technological developement
-To set finite fuel reduction targets for special case nations, such as those with severely poor economic and/or technological developement, or those whose finite fuel usage is already at a minimum

MANDATES that nations of average economically and technologically development reduce finite resource use per annum using the formula of the Population Growth (as a percentage) multiplied by the percentage of minimum reduction in finite fuel use.

AFFIRMS that the UNFFUC will set these usual minimum reduction in finite fuel use rates:
-10% for nations of advanced economic and technological developement
-5% for nations of average technological and average or high economic developement
-2% for nations of low technological or economic developement

AFFIRMS that the UNFFUC retains the right to set different percentage levels to these standard rates for any individual nation where it is deemed necessary

URGES nations to excede these targets

URGES nations to investigate renewable energy sources

For the formula: if your popluation growth is 25% per annum and you are of medium technological/economic status and there are no other factors to be considered, the formula would be 25% x 5% = .25 x .05 = 0.0125 = 1.25% reduction in fossil fuel usage

Getting a little ahead of ourselves, aren't we? Wait till the repeal has been submitted. That said:

FOUNDS the UNFFUC (United Nations Finite Fuel Use Commitee), whose role will be to classify nations economical and technological status for the purposes of this resolution, and to grant temporary compliance deferment for as long as they deem necessary for nations the effects of natural disasters, and other possibilities at their own discretion on a case by case basis or in the case of a nation having significantly poor economic and/or technological developement"CREATES" is a better word than "FOUNDS," and the entire clause is a run-on sentence. Break it up somehow.

Actually, I would go with "ESTABLISHES" over "FOUNDS" or "CREATES."

The people of Cluichstan do enjoy picking nits. ;)

Done and done!

I hadn't seen this at the time: BUMP.

The definition of "Finite fuel source" is too broad, since every fuel source is finite, even Hydrogen.

In any event, the PDS would not support such a proposal, as it is too broad and vague to be of any enforceable value.

Finite fuel source is self-defining. A fuel source...which is finite. He does also point 'especially' to fossil fuels.

maths was never my strong point. can the honourable delegate provide an example based on a population of 200 million people and average technology and development.

then we might all see how this works.

i believe the term 'fossil fule' is refering to fules that have been created over millenia by fossilisation of certern matter (ie: irl, plants and such). the term doesnt relate to being a finite resource, its just that it is the most common known one. as for the proposal, i am sure, if dredge through the pile know as passed resolutions, you will find probably half a dozen relating to alternatives to fossil fule, way before the one currently at repeal was even concidered

The given formula, to be blunt, makes no sense. Would someone attempt to explain what in the heck you are trying to say. I pride myself in understanding Algebraic equations to the nth degree, and instead of excusing myself, saying that I just don't understand this, I will venture to say that the equation is crap as it is, and either needs to be replaced, or at least better defined. I would be happy to help, if I knew what was trying to be done.

SqR

Well, I believe it's saying the reduction needs to be (population growth as a % increase) x (% level for given tech level). It's not an algebraic problem, it's on of definition.

Nonetheless, I assume - and I am not speaking for Cobdenia here, so I may be completely wrong - for a medium-level nation with a population increase of 5%, the reduction would need to .25% for that year.

Finite fuel source is self-defining. A fuel source...which is finite. He does also point 'especially' to fossil fuels.

But the problem is *all* fuel sources are finite. Eventually you will run out of what ever you are burning.

But the problem is *all* fuel sources are finite. Eventually you will run out of what ever you are burning.

Exactly! All fuel is finite. An infinite fuel source would have to be non depleting, or something that when you burn it never looses mass.

But the problem is *all* fuel sources are finite. Eventually you will run out of what ever you are burning.

Burning, yah. But you won't run out of tidal power, or wind. (Yes, ok, the seas could dry up, but, we have to have some sense of scale.) Anything where the energy is generated by something that cannot really be expended or that will presumably be renewable, such as biomass, couldn't really count as finite.

Exactly! All fuel is finite. An infinite fuel source would have to be non depleting, or something that when you burn it never looses mass.

No, you're misunderstanding. It doesn't mean the fuel isn't used up in the process...it means the supply of the fuel could not really be exhausted: tidal power, for example.

Burning, yah. But you won't run out of tidal power, or wind. (Yes, ok, the seas could dry up, but, we have to have some sense of scale.) Anything where the energy is generated by something that cannot really be expended or that will presumably be renewable, such as biomass, couldn't really count as finite.

If enough tidal and wind generators were constructed, concievably the winds would be too small to turn the turbines due to the friction caused by the wind hitting the fans, and the tidal waves would suffer the same fate.

even Solar under this definition is finite, because the sun will eventually burn out (while engulfing the surrounding planets in a hot helium plasma)

I would suggest a reasonable definition of finite includes fuel sources that will remain viable up until the point where they engulf us in a fiery storm of death.

I'd like to see explicit allowances made for current levels of usage, please. If we've already cut our fuel use significantly and are very frugal, why should we be set the same target as a wasteful nation, just because they are at a similar level of economic/technological development?

All good idea's, but I'll wait for the repeal to go through before working out how to include them all.

I'd like to see explicit allowances made for current levels of usage, please. If we've already cut our fuel use significantly and are very frugal, why should we be set the same target as a wasteful nation, just because they are at a similar level of economic/technological development?

I agree on this point. A distinction needs to be made not only on grounds of technology level, economic development and population increase, but also for the sort of policies and reforms currently in place.

Well, I believe it's saying the reduction needs to be (population growth as a % increase) x (% level for given tech level). It's not an algebraic problem, it's on of definition.

Nonetheless, I assume - and I am not speaking for Cobdenia here, so I may be completely wrong - for a medium-level nation with a population increase of 5%, the reduction would need to .25% for that year.

You are quite correct.

You are quite correct.

Thanks: that's what I thought. I wasn't really sure how there could be confusion about the algebra of an ab equation. But I do think it's a tad unclear: perhaps spell it out a bit more for other confused delegates? I know the repeal's looking low, but I think activity about this will show that we are serious about a replacement.

Thanks: that's what I thought. I wasn't really sure how there could be confusion about the algebra of an ab equation. But I do think it's a tad unclear: perhaps spell it out a bit more for other confused delegates? I know the repeal's looking low, but I think activity about this will show that we are serious about a replacement.

I've included an example in the original post, but I don't want to use an example in the text of the resolution because it won't look right...

I don't mean so much an example as just a clearer definition. I wasn't sure what X was. I don't want a textual addition...just something to make it more obvious. Not quite sure what, though. It probably doesn't matter.

Ah... I see said the blind man. What shows up on my screen looks very convincingly like little x, big x, little y, and doesn't resemble an equation, but perhaps that is just on my screen. Instead, I might suggest scraping the equation part of it, and just say something like ...will be defined by population growth percent multiplied by the percent reduction required... or something of the sort... it'll just make it easier if you leave the variables out of it.

SqR

Burning, yah. But you won't run out of tidal power, or wind. (Yes, ok, the seas could dry up, but, we have to have some sense of scale.) Anything where the energy is generated by something that cannot really be expended or that will presumably be renewable, such as biomass, couldn't really count as finite.

(smirk) Ok - I think this is just misunderstanding of "fuel" - I wouldn't class wind, the tides or the sun as "fuel" but as "energy sources" because you don't have to destroy them to use them :}

(Context is fun, isn't it?)

Ah... I see said the blind man. What shows up on my screen looks very convincingly like little x, big x, little y, and doesn't resemble an equation, but perhaps that is just on my screen. Instead, I might suggest scraping the equation part of it, and just say something like ...will be defined by population growth percent multiplied by the percent reduction required... or something of the sort... it'll just make it easier if you leave the variables out of it.

SqR

Fair enough.

(smirk) Ok - I think this is just misunderstanding of "fuel" - I wouldn't class wind, the tides or the sun as "fuel" but as "energy sources" because you don't have to destroy them to use them :}

(Context is fun, isn't it?)

I don't get the joke. Sorry.

I take your point, but I don't agree. You're begging the question: you're defining a fuel as something that is finite. Hence there's no problem with a 'finite fuel' definition save for the tautology.

I'm not going to say you're wrong - I don't know enough of the technical lingo to compete - but I am going to say that given a fuel is defined as finite, we must assume he is referring to finite 'energy sources'. I don't believe Cobdenia would waste words in his proposal.

Damn, I thought I already changed it to that.

Okay, done it now!

There were so many complaints about the 'Promotion of Solar Panels' resolution that even the nation of Starcra II, which had originally proposed that measure, agreed - while voting on it was still in progress - that its repeal & replacement would be necessary. They set up a thread to discuss such a replacement, took heed of a lot of more moderate suggestions, and came up with a proposal that in my opinion looked quite reasonable... but the FFRA got into the queue for voting before this one could do so. It's at

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444693&highlight=Replacement+Promotion+Solar+Panels

I'd recommend concentrating on fossil fuels for now. Action is needed much sooner on fossil fuels than on uranium usage, and in the short- to medium-term, the best way for many nations to cut fossil fuel use will be to increase their use of nuclear fission - which won't be allowed by the text as it stands, because use of all finite fuels must be cut simulatneously.

Hmmm...alright, I suppose your correct Your Excellency.

Fossil fuels it will be...

(OoC: I only included uranium as it is the only fuel actually in NS)

Should my resolution be repealed, I shall support this replacement.

One question though, when you say a per annum reduction, do you meen that the reduction will be calculated each year by the consumption of the current year, or by the rate of consumption as it stands now?

I agree with leaving nuclear power out of the proposal, as it leads to questions of arms ploriferation and I view it as a seperate issue anyway.

I understand that you are working the finite supply angle, but I think it would bolster your argument if environmental destruction from fossil fuels was mentioned. I am not talking about global warming, this issue is too devicive and not well founded enough, but people can see and feel the effects of smog and oil spillage, as well as mining.

As long as you are creating a committee with this, you may want to include some technology sharing program that would by run by it. Nations could be rewarded somehow by sharing clean renewable technology information with less advanced, technologically or economically, nations.

Personally, I would require nations to invest in R&D of clean, renewables, but I would support the resolution with its current urging.

Should my resolution be repealed, I shall support this replacement.

One question though, when you say a per annum reduction, do you meen that the reduction will be calculated each year by the consumption of the current year, or by the rate of consumption as it stands now?

I agree with leaving nuclear power out of the proposal, as it leads to questions of arms ploriferation and I view it as a seperate issue anyway.

I understand that you are working the finite supply angle, but I think it would bolster your argument if environmental destruction from fossil fuels was mentioned. I am not talking about global warming, this issue is too devicive and not well founded enough, but people can see and feel the effects of smog and oil spillage, as well as mining.

As long as you are creating a committee with this, you may want to include some technology sharing program that would by run by it. Nations could be rewarded somehow by sharing clean renewable technology information with less advanced, technologically or economically, nations.

Personally, I would require nations to invest in R&D of clean, renewables, but I would support the resolution with its current urging.

The reason I decided against requiring nations to invest in renewable sources, and my unwillingness to encourage technology sharing, is basically due to the NS technology problem. I'm sure you'll agree that it would be silly to force industrial era nations to look into renewable sources of fuel, and I've always thought that technology sharing could be seen to compromise the technological differences between nations (giving stone age nations the ability to turn rubbish into fuel for cars, that sought of thing)

OoC: Cobdenia is late industrial period; hence I tend to be a bit annoying when it comes to tech!

Okay, I need someone whose good at maths because someone just TG'ed me a major flaw: It penalises smaller nations whose percentage growth is larger than new nations.

Help; the only way I can think of soughting this is using inverses, but there must be a simpler way!

Okay, I need someone whose good at maths because someone just TG'ed me a major flaw: It penalises smaller nations whose percentage growth is larger than new nations.

Help; the only way I can think of soughting this is using inverses, but there must be a simpler way!

Sorry, I don't understand the problem. Surely using population growth is good, because it's going to correlate to some extend to increase in resource use.

Sorry, I don't understand the problem. Surely using population growth is good, because it's going to correlate to some extend to increase in resource use.

Yes, but with this the faster your growth rate, the more you need to reduce fuel usage.

e.g.

Big nations grow more slowly (in NS) than small nations. Say the big nation grows at 2% and the small nation at 25%, then it works out as so:

2% x 10% = 0.02 x 0.1 = 0.002 = 0.2% reduction required
25% x 10% = 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.025 = 2.5% reduction required

So small, fast growing nations that will need to use more fuel, are penalised...

I see...hmm. So would you need a third variable based on size, or to alter the 'x' factor to incorporate size alongside growth rate? I'll think about, but I'm not sue I'll be able to help.

Sorry I can't help with the maths right now (if I get a moment when I'm more awake, I might be able to have a think), but might it be possible to implement a credit scheme with this, whereby nations that exceed their required reduction for the year will get credits for however many gallons of oil/gas or tonnes of coal (by the way, if we're talking about reducing total fossil fuel use, how were you intending that we should add coal oil and gas together to give one figure that we can reduce by x% ?), which they can either redeem in future years if they fall short then, or sell to other nations?

...(by the way, if we're talking about reducing total fossil fuel use, how were you intending that we should add coal oil and gas together to give one figure that we can reduce by x% ?)...


Pardon me for focusing on the parenthetical, but this is an excellent point.

Personally, I'd advocate giving each a score per kg of fuel based on the urgency of reducing their use (i.e. on polluting power and remaining supply), find the mass of fuel used, then multiply by the score for each fuel and add them up. Due to the variety of different types of petrol etc., and the various technologies available to reduce emissions, and disputes on remaining supplies, I'd say this duty should be given to a committee of scientists. On the other hand, this may be overcomplicated.

i would still work on hammering this problem out. we may need this proposal some day.

i feel that a balance has to be struck between the ecomony and the enviroment. some nations manage this already and others don't. a developing nation shouldn't be penalised because they have a faster population growth.

on one hand you don't want to implode a nations economy and on the other hand its in a nations own interest to make their fossil fuels last as long as possible.

theres already existing ways such as hybrid engines and electric engines but we still come back to power generation. how do you generate electricy in sufficent quantities without using fossil fuels?

Nuclear power is the obvious choice for a lot of nations. water based power generation is another option for most countries.

Solar power only really works in countries that get a lot of sunlight. Kirisubo doesn't so its not a solution for us.

Wind power is unpredictable at best and some enviromentalists would consider a wind farm as another problem.

if we can get our heads round this problematic formula we can make fossil fuels last longer, achieve the cuts fairly and also get countries started with alternitive energy technologies which at this point in time only produce a limited amount of energy and can only improve their generation output over time given a lot of research and development.

Eureka!

Pollution vouchers, like they have in the US!

A certain number are issued based on the current usage in each country worldwide, then if a company reduces pollution, they can sell there vouchers, if a company is expanding they can buy some, they could be sold to countries, to companies, or back to the UN (so the amount of pollution would always be reduced)